Memeorandum

Prediction Markets

April 12, 2008

"A Typical Sort Of Political Flare-Up"

As the "Hey Rubes, Back Barack" tour swung through Indiana, Obama was in another town meeting defending himself again from his small town disaster [More at the Times and WaPo, and the AP is excellent]. The candidate was insightful - "I didn’t say it as well as I should have" - and displayed his keen sense of Presidential campaigns, calling the current firestorm "a typical sort of political flare-up”.

Hmm, how typical is it for a candidate to characterize a huge swath of his target voters as bigoted, gun waving religious fanatics? I'll bet that in Dem strategy sessions run by law school alums, it's pretty typical!

I'm getting a mental image of Obama during other "typical" flare-ups - sort of a "But sweetie, those jeans do make you look fat" thing, or maybe "Honestly, officer, you need to understand that some people have a very high tolerance for alcohol".

I can't believe that in all those Harvard classes they never emphasize that you can't tell the rubes what you really think of them. Surely they aren't relying on the common sense of the elitist snobs passing through to figure that out themselves? Didn't work!

SANITIZING BARACK: NY Times readers will practically need a decoder ring to figure out what the controversy is, although if they read down far enough they should be able to piece it together [now the Times has re-written it - "cling to their guns" has moved from the umpteenth paragraph to the second]; the WaPo blog coverage is actually pretty good.

As Hugh Hewitt notes, the WaPo showed their nose for news by putting this story on page 4; this passage describing Obama's attempt to avoid the "elitist" tag is funny, especially when accurately annotated:

Obama advisers quickly sent out the full comments from the fundraiser
in an effort to show that Obama, far from looking down at people, was
entirely sympathetic to their situation pathetic, misdirected lives and to their distrust of
(much wiser) politicians.

COVERING THE STORY: The AP has a concise lead and extended comments from Hilary Clinton and her supporter Evan Bayh. Here we go:

MUNCIE, Ind. - Democrat Barack Obama
on Saturday conceded that comments he made about bitter working class
voters who "cling to guns or religion" were ill chosen, as he tried to
stem a burst of complaints that he is condescending.

By way of contrast, here was the original Times lead:

MUNCIE, Ind. — Senator Obama on Saturday rebutted criticism that has enveloped his campaign over a
comment he made last Sunday that many working-class voters are angry
and bitter over economic conditions in America, and he told an audience
here that his words were not meant to be insulting.

Many dispirited
voters believe politicians
will not solve their problems, Mr. Obama argued, so they base their
votes on issues like religion, gun rights or same-sex marriage rather
than voting for their economic interests.

Where's the controversy? Well, the "cling to guns and religion" phrase was buried deep. Here is the new Times version, which elevates it to the second paragraph:

The Democratic nominating fight took a sudden turn with Senator Barack Obama’s comments about small-town Pennsylvania
voters providing an opening for the Clinton campaign to raise anew
questions about Mr. Obama’s ability to lure working-class voters.

With the Pennsylvania primary just 10 days away, Mr. Obama was
forced to deal with a torrent of criticism on Saturday over his remarks
to donors in San Francisco that such voters “cling” to their guns and
religion because they are bitter about their economic circumstances.

Better. Let's cut back to the AP for Clinton and Bayh:

Clinton attacked Obama's remarks much more harshly Saturday than she
had the night before, calling them "demeaning." Her aides feel Obama
has given them a big opening, pulling the spotlight away from more
troubling stories such as former President Clinton's recent revisiting of his wife's misstatements about an airport landing in Bosnia 10 years ago.

Obama is trying to focus attention narrowly on his remarks, arguing
there's no question that some working class families are anxious and
bitter. The Clinton campaign is parsing every word, focusing on what
Obama said about religion, guns, immigration and trade.

Clinton hit all those themes in lengthy comments to manufacturing workers in Indianapolis.

"I was raised with Midwestern values and an unshakable faith in America and its policies," she said. "Now, Americans who believe in the Second Amendment believe it's a matter of constitutional right. Americans who believe in God believe it's a matter of personal faith."

"I grew up in a churchgoing family ...," she continued. "The people
of faith I know don't 'cling' to religion because they're bitter.
People embrace faith not because they are materially poor, but because
they are spiritually rich ...

"I also disagree with Senator Obama's
assertion that people in this country 'cling to guns' and have certain
attitudes about immigration or trade simply out of frustration," she
said.

"People don't need a president who looks down on them," she said. "They need a president who stands up for them."

One of Clinton's staunchest supporters, Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., acknowledged there was some truth in Obama's remarks. But Republicans would use them against him anyway, Bayh said.

"We do have economic hard times, and that does lead to a
frustration and some justifiable anger, it's true," Bayh told reporters
after introducing Clinton in Indianapolis. "But I think you're on
dangerous ground when you morph that into suggesting that people's
cultural values, whether it's religion or hunting and fishing or
concern about trade, are premised solely upon those kinds of anxieties
and don't have a legitimate foundation independent of that."

Bayh skips past the odd tension between Obama's own opposition to free trade and his apparent belief that free trade opponents are embittered economic losers; maybe Barack opposes free trade on behalf of Michelle, who is struggling to get by on only $400,000 per year.

TrackBack

» Saturday links from Maggie's Farm
Obama's elitism. Pajamas. More on the topic via Insty here, also here:TOM MAGUIRE: A TYPICAL SORT OF FLARE-UP: Hmm, how typical is it for a candidate to characterize a huge swath of his target voters as bigoted, gun waving religious fanatics? [Read More]

Tracked on April 12, 2008 at 02:51 PM

» The Politics of Condescension from A Second Hand Conjecture
Given the discussion at this post about Obamas condescension, I suggest Tom Maguires roundup of the coverage of Obama making the mistake of speaking his mind about the rubes who he needs to vote for him:
I cant believe that in all ... [Read More]

Tracked on April 12, 2008 at 05:49 PM

» Redneck Rampage Round-Up Redux from Ace of Spades HQ
I've been putting this off but here goes. Obama's explanation, Take 2: "Somethin' that everyone knows is true." His claim here is clever: That he didn't mean people "cling" to their religion and guns and hatred of people who don't... [Read More]

Tracked on April 12, 2008 at 05:55 PM

Comments

You notice how Obama attaches the word "typical" to anything that might be damaging to his campaign.

He described his grandmother's views toward's black people as that of a "typical white person."

Now, he's trying to downplay the insult to small town folks in Pennsylvania by insisting that the heat over his remarks are just a "typical sort of political flare up."

What I've come to learn as I find out more about Barack Obama is that he is just a typical black politician.

Not at all (I can provide a list). He is an extraordinarily typical progressive politician, stamped in the same mold as Dukakis, Gore, Kerry et al, ad nauseum. IOW - he's red, not black.

He has the typical prog "both feet in mouth" propensity that makes him as easy (if not easier) to beat than the others mentioned above. He doesn't have RW's ability to hide the red core and we should vociferously support him as the Democrat party nominee - don't let RW disenfranchise all those who have expressed their desire for BHO to assume his rightful place in history. Next to the others mentioned.

Mike's America- I don't agree with your last line. However, you are astute in your observation that Obama brings out the word "typical"- and I would add "political"- when he has been fairly criticized.

Obama isn't a foot in mouth merchant,he simply does not see it a offensive.It is the "typical" progressive egalitarian intellectuals prerogative to talk down to the proles.Did not Marx himself say it was the "Role of the intellectual to politicise the proletariat" IIRC.
Well, Barack Hussein Obama has just done that.How can you fault the man?

"Gentlemen. It is a well known fact among the educated that being a member of a motorcycle gang is simply a compensation for small penis size. So you're just doing what comes naturally to you. Peanut."

well, to be sure Obama has lied even about his race, he is running on a false ticket, he is 6%.4 black ,50% white, the rest arab, he done this to get the african vote, he doesnt even have enough black blood to even declare himself black, he is as false as he is a big liar,crook he is NOT FIT to be our president, he should be in prison for the gang voilence he was involed in as a teen ager, bombing our country, drug dealing also and you all want him for our president? cold day in h***

Obama isn't a foot in mouth merchant,he simply does not see it a offensive

Exactly right. Nothing he and Michelle have said so far would raise an eyebrow on an Ivy League campus.

The most successful Dem politician of our time, Bill Clinton, was successful precisely because he managed the 2-step none of the rest of them can figure out. Although Clinton was an elitist policy wonk, his background and personality enabled him to come across as an aw-shucks country boy when he needed to. Even his faults and transgressions endeared him to people. (Everytime I saw him on TV, I thought of Eddie Haskell or a used-car salesman, but clearly I was in the minority.)

Clinton could do it, but Gore couldn't, Kerry couldn't, and Obama certainly can't.

Yes, PeterUK. It's all about getting rid of the trash... for the Common Good.

"Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your division. That you come out of your isolation. That you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual; uninvolved, uninformed."

Obama (per ABC):Lately there has been a little typical sort of political flare-up because I said something that everybody knows is true, which is that there are a whole bunch of folks in small towns in Pennsylvania, in towns right here in Indiana, in my hometown in Illinois who are bitter,"

His hometown in Illinois? Hyde Park? Chicago?
Is he comparing either of those two to small towns in Pennsylvania?
Why not just compare the SanFran group he was talking to, then. Why are they bitter (cause I bet they are!)?

I don't think Obama is the "black" candidate. Since he started running, I have pegged him as the "liberal yuppie candidate". Last summer, when discussing this with a neighbor (and I live in one of the liberal yuppie neighborhoods of Chicago), she just smiled and said "Well, we ARE the Democratic Party
now".

There are people who think that blog is misnamed and should be called "Stuff Upper-Middle Class Liberal Yuppies Like." I disagree. I like the name because it underlines the fact that upper-middle-class liberal yuppies, who look down on other whites and pride themselves on their "diversity" and "tolerance" are themselves as vanilla as they come.

"Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your division. That you come out of your isolation. That you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual; uninvolved, uninformed."

I suspect,that if Obama succeeds,being the first black president will be will be a large enough task.The rest is way in the future.

A choice tidbit is that apparently Andrew Sullivan has weighed in on Obama's side, praising him for simply telling the truth (at least Andrew doesn't say "to power"). Who knew that ol' Andrew was so exquisitely attuned to the sensibilities of small-town Pennsylvania? Guy must be a genius...

Anybody see the Richard Pryor movie "Brewster's Millions"? He inherits $300 million, but in order to claim it, he first has to blow $30 million and get nothing to show for it, with the added condition he can't tell anyone why he's pissing the money away.

I think Dean may have Bubba and Barack in the same position, but with delegates.

Incidentally, one of Brewster's big useless expenditures is a political campaign. He runs a wave of ads to get people to write in "none of the above".

OMG (forgive my instant message speak; this Baby Boomer has been schooled by his Millenial Generation kids), I never thought HRC would become the candidate of God, guns and the traditional American way! And I never thought that my junior senator (I reside in the People's Republic of Patrickchusetts) would be surpassed on the haughtiness meter by anyone!

"Again, we will see more and more of these condescending statements of the Michelle Obama strain, more and more of Revs. Wright, Meeks, Lee and others peddlers of division like them, and more and more clues to a long hostility to Israel—in what will eventually become the most disastrous chapter in recent Democratic history.

I'm offended by what Obama didn't say. After all he didn't give his opinion of me.
He was asked his opinion about why working-class Americans in small towns weren't supporting him, or rather why they were supporting Hillary instead of him in the primary. So he was giving his opinion of why Democrats weren't supporting him.

He said they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

I don't see anything on that list that sounds like a rational reason to choose Hillary over Barack. Given the context I would call it a list of insults.

What I'm concerned about is that someday someone may ask Obama why I didn't vote for him.

Well, Mr. Collins, history always surprises us, the old marxist 'first as tragedy than as farce. Yes, he's the black McGovern, even more than McGovern was. McGovern was a hybrid, a political scientist (his Ph.d dissertation was on the Rockefeller directed
Ludlow Massacre)but he was also a war vet. He was implicitly the candidate of the SDS,
(that's Gitlin & Hayden, possibly not Ayers & Boudin )SNCC, (the Stokely Carmichael wing) et al. He really did believe that the conduct of the war, was a crime, dissimilar from his own action in Europe; although "he voted for it,( Gulf of Tonkin,) before he voted against it; just like his Southern counterpart Fulbright
whereas as Obama believes the war is criminal in situ, and his core comes from those who would rather wage the "war in America": Ayers, Khalidi, Wright, Lee, et al) The hanger ons, Powers, Malley, et al;a remuch like those Vietnam retreads in the Carter cabinet (Komer, Vance, Brown) who thought themselves 'redeemed for their sin'.
They were effectively useless, for much of
the era; Vance resigning over a flawed operation because it was tried (Desert One)
whose seeds would bring forth the most capable Army Chief of Staff Schoomaker, and
special forces operative Boykin)Brown did eventually make the turn around after the soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Brezinski learned entirely the wrong lesson, as the supposed hawk empowering the ISI and Saudi GID, which gave us the Taliban & AQ.leaning into Saddam's ambitions, etc. Obama is the candidate that really believes Frank's economic determinism, and most important, George "Wackoff, rhymes with" theory of framing the debate. On the other side of the Party, is James Webb, the McClellan for lack of a better term, or the James Gavin
to continue the Vietnam analogy. He really has convinced himself that not only is Iraq, the fiasco, crisis, cataclysm, but dealing with Iran & Syria is the solution.
Nothing seems to have disabused hm of this
fact. He seems to be ignoring the core of the Scotch Irish heritage of honor and retribution, that he is ostensibly the expert on.

McCain, coming from two three generations of military men, (his great grandfather probably served in that early 'quagmire' of the Phillipines, is totally alien to this type of thinking. His grandfather, was present at the Missouri signing, his father, as CINCPAC chafed at the stupid
targeting rules by the Johnson and Nixon White House; which were finally waved in
the winter of '72/73. Which broke the deadlock at the Peace Talks. One major issue, if he wins, what will the democratic response be. One recalls that the SDS; they're still around at Columbia, turned into the Weather Underground, 'Ayer's boys'
after the Humphrey defeat. The Black
Panthers were a relatively marginal force, but a generation of Wright and Farrakhan's preachings, could 'inherit he wind' of a violent response; possibly aided by jihadist elements.

Another issue, is what he will really do about Iran. His first team of advisors, (Armitage, "Kingsley" is the way I refer to him, Scowcroft, patriarch of the Saudi support lobby) are really likely to let
'sleeping dogs' lie, until we see flashes of light, in the Zagros mountains, or more likely nuclear tipped Sahabs taking out Al Ubaid & Camp Dawnah (the Dan Simmon's dystopian 'letter from the future, suggests
as much) Another side, the hated 'reformed
neocons, might take a look at slowing down
Bushehr and Isfahan's progress. And finally
challenge the real enemy; that rises from the Nejd, like the malevolent Djinn a century ago. That confronted Major Glubb, in Iraq, in the aftermath of theprecipitous
British retreat from that landI speak of the Wahhabi Ilkwan that carries the tribal names of Quahtani, Uteibi, Ghamdi, and their financial, media& other facilitators. Obama's stumbles are amusing, but they're are really beside the point in the bigger picture.

Of course, the real wild card is the economy, as some have pointed ou, we've never had a downturn manifest signs this close to an election (In '88 the S&L bubble was beginning to pop, '00 the tech bubble had popped, but people ignored it until the
post election aftermath). McCain's solution to indemnify almost every sub prime holder seems problematic, but Clinton's three month
moratorium seems worse, and Obama's way, lies madness. Pelosi's literal gift to Chavez, with the end of the Colombia pact
is hopely as close to Smoot Hawley as we want to go. But I'm not assured. The spectacle of $4 even $5 gallon oil, thanks to the likes of the Phibro speculating unit
at Citgo, or the 'butterfly effect' from even a wisp of Gulf directed hurricanes,the cost of Oberstar's 'jihad' on the airlines, all could make things immeasurably worse, and actually empower Obama.

My local paper, is quite totally oblivious
of this. Besides providing the daily Gitmo
detainee defense brief (the teenage AQ, was
framed to cover up a friendly fire incident) Sadrist and Salafi propaganda from the Baghdad bureau, their opinion page includes the same recycled Sadr won, narrative from last week, along with the
obligatory 'there's no light at the end of the tunnel. A novel Bay of Pigs/Iraq War
analogy by one of the rejected planners of
that operation; yeah those parallels make sense; along with the obligatory 'Shinseki
was fired' and the 'unilateral invasion' opposed by Powell, (really 27 countries in unilateral. Well that's my take have at it
(By the way, I tried writing a post long hand and pasting it, it didn't take)

Spend the money. Government work. Spend it in 24 hours or the next one is lower. It's now five years and the money has to be spent faster. So, a five year budget is gone in 24 hours, the first year of the five years. So, the budget is five years and they've hired for five years, so you can't cut the budget or it's layoffs and no dem likes federal employee layoffs. Survival is now a five year federal budget. Foreign aid is now a five year budget. Dems don't like layoffs so it's five years for the employees. The employment is for five years,so why the budget is five years unless it's a pension that the director runs. Treasury has five year budgets for foreign aid. Peace Corps is running the federal budget out five years and Congress thinks the five year extension is okay, of course, the employees have a term limit of five years and the pcv employees have a limit of 2 years. Federal budgets now run five years, not one year or two years. So, why would unions be against a five year budget for two year employees unless their not five year employees or retired pensoners.

'Need to hire on a five year budget. Sustainable development. So, the 2 year employees are not sustainable.

The hanger ons, Powers, Malley, et al;a remuch like those Vietnam retreads in the Carter cabinet (Komer, Vance, Brown) who thought themselves 'redeemed for their sin'.

I heard David Kennedy the historian and Obama supporter say the other day that he'd been at a conference last year where Samantha Power opined that the first thing the next President should do is apologize.

"I saw Samantha Powers one sleepless night, on the Colbert report. Her thesis is that if you bring "dignity" to the terrorists they will lose any desire to terrorize."

This belongs to the school of thought exemplified by a woman I heard on a phone in years ago."Perhaps the reason sharks are like they are,is because we are not kind enough to them".
It's a mental disorder not a point of view.

I don't know what rock you slithered out from under, but your comments are offensive enough to this conservative to have him ask you to quickly crawl back under it, out of the mind-burning sun...

Bob, I have to admit my eyes simply glazed over, and I just didn't read "pearl's" screed until you caused me to look back. I say this because I now feel kind of guilty that I didn't come down on her as firmly as you did, and I wish to associate myself fully with your comment.

That said, does "pearl" read to anyone else like "she" is one of those folks from MyDD, here to sock-puppet something atrociously racist as ammunition for later saying the comments prove what racists Tom and his wingnut commenters really are?

It might be very interesting to follow up on the IP address for that comment.

I'm not really an Obama supporter, but this is what I think he was trying to say. There is a schism in America, not just between liberals and conservatives but between social and economic issues. Sometimes conservatives are socially conservative and economically liberal, sometimes socially liberal and economically conservative.
Obama is probably complaining about an issue the Democrats see, that poor white conservatives seem to vote against their economic issues in favor of their social issues. So while Democrats might help them with health care, higher minimum wages, unions, and protectionism this would appeal to economic liberals. However these people are often socially conservative and the Republicans get their vote by wedge issues of accusing Democrats (rightly or wrongly) of trying to take away their guns, ridicule their religion and making them tolerate gays and immigration more.
However Obama (I think) is trying to say that these people should vote according to economically liberal arguments rather than "cling" to the conservative social issues, and they would be better off economically if they did.
On the other hand others might argue they are better off with economically conservative ideas like free trade, a lower minimum wage, less protectionism, less welfare and health care. Some like these ideas more yet are socially liberal (e.g. Andrew Sullvan) in that they don't care so much about "god, guns and gays".
So Democrats look to these kinds of voters and try to capture them from the Republican side with economic policies, while Republicans try and keep them with socially conservative issues. Republicans like to try and get black and latino votes from the Democrats as well, for example with Latinos they try and sway them with socially conservative issues which often works well for them.
But the way Obama said this it sounded more like sneering at social conservatism rather than promoting economic liberalism. I'm not sure, but that's the way I see this.

On the other hand others might argue they are better off with economically conservative ideas like free trade, a lower minimum wage, less protectionism, less welfare and health care.

Ya think? Still others might argue that the rule of law (especially that big one . . . you know, the Constitution) ought to be paramount, because without that, you can never tell what the sophisticates in D.C. might foist on us next.

How many of you considered revealing your conviction about a constitutional right, but then thought better of it?

Then you are a victim of the cultural war. You are a casualty of the cultural warfare being waged against traditional American freedom of beliefs and ideas. Now maybe you don't care one way or the other about owning a gun. But I could've asked for a show of hands on Pentecostal Christians, or pro-lifers, or right-to-workers, or Promise Keepers, or school voucher-ers, and the result would be the same. What if the same question were asked at your PTA meeting? Would you raise your hand if Dan Rather were in the back of the room there with a film crew?

The left embraced him when he marched with MLK in the Civil Rights Movement. Then they called him senile when he marched for a different civil right. I'll miss him!

RCH, I think it's even simpler than Ann says it is. The guy was speaking in an arrogant, condescending manner about middle-class people in Pennsylvania and the Midwest, and he was doing it in a group of extraordinarily wealthy San Franciso liberals. Slice it and dice it any way you want. As Billy Ayers would say, you don't need a Weatherman...

Here's the link to the veteran side of McGovern; (I must be psychic, as I didn't know Varifrank would take this particular tact:http://varifrank.com/archives/2008/04/rockefeller_hat.php> As I pointed out at another site, which speculated whether we
'deserved Nixon' as a punishment for our sins, and whether that meant that the policies in Vietnam, Cambodia, Turkey, Pakistan & Chile would have stayed the same. I pointed out that Kissinger was Rockefeller's man, and as such followed their agenda. However, I also pointed out how Johnson holdovers like Daniel Davidson and Mort Halperin, worked to press for a VC coalition government in the South; thus basically undermining the war's success's under Creighton Abrams and Colby. How Halperin's pique at Kissinger's wiretaps led him to the D.C. office of the ACLU and
the IPS; whose news service today echoes the
jibes against Petraeus by Fallon, and the
'discovery' of 'black water fever.Halperin, would further approve of DGI/KGB agent Phillip Agee's campaign against American intelligence on 1st Amendment grounds, and was one of the major witnesses against the
enactment of the 'Welch bill, otherwise known as the IOAA. The fact that Agee basically footnoted Mader's Stasi research was not known at the time; or considered
relevant today; much like Joe Wilson's lobbying for Saudi and/or Sudanese interests. This didn't stop liberals would try to use against Libby, a quarter century later. Halperin, not surprisingly, is a vice president at the Obama friendly, although Clinton founded CAP thinktank; funded by foreign currency annihilator and
godfather of S. Asia's economic collapse, George Soros. Lake, considered a likely Obama choice for Secretary of State (god
help us!)took his Saigon experience to mean
never support any US ally in the Third World; hence his haughty outrage at Nixon's
Cambodian incursion; which lead to his subsequent resignation. He has never apologized for the consequences of this temper tantrum, which indirectly led to the horror of the Khmer Rouge Year Zero. Lake is the sort that might have been on the mind of former Cambodian officials Lon Nol
and Sirik Matak, when in their last acknowledged statement, cursed themselves for believing the US govt's promises. Which
ironically is a scholarly interest of former?? Obama foreign policy adviser, Samantha Power. Ironically she argues for policies that tend to benefit the likes of
the Khmer Rouge, the Hutu, the Baathist oligarchies, over other factions. Once ensconced in the Carter Administration, as State's Policy Planner, he led the call to abandon the Shah, leading to the power vaccuum that Khomeini filled; leaving Somoza to the tender mercies of the moderate members of the Sandinista junta (which in practice, meant he was killed by Argentine guerillas in Paraguay. 1980)Such fate might await a Talabani, Maliki, et al;as well as Karzai, Fahim, Musharaf, Mubarak? in an Obama administration. Lawrence Walsh, everybody Democrat's favorite Republican, would go from this status quo minus position at the Paris
Talks to the best Archibald Cox impression
during Iran Contra. Holbrooke, Hillary's foreign policy major domo, is a little less
cynical, as he did at one time, support the
Iraq War, he also thought the UN forces didn't do enough to catch Karacic and Mladic in Bosnia; how long has he been 'on the run'

Negroponte, who would likely succeed Condi, in the event of her absence, alone, took his
Vietnam experience, to have some
consideration for the ally we were ostensibly fighting and dying for; that earned him exile in the choice posts of Thessalonika and Guayaquil. It was that
experience, that brought him Reagan's attention as proconsul for the Contra effort in Honduras; a point that Christopher Dickey would always hold against him, in his Boschian look at Central America in the Washington Post. an act that nearly derailed his future career prospects. A generation later, he took one more chance, when he served a similar role in Baghdad after Bremer's miscues. The rise of the Shiite militias which would eventually represent the 'civil war' is seen as te result of this previous history. Did the SCIRI Badr brigades create the death squads or did the CIA; people can't make up their minds. As DNI he didn't make much of an impression, as he seems to have incorporated the bulk of the whole 'war on terror' dissenters, (Graham, Van Diepen, the other one who signed onto the 2007 Iran
NIE) As State deputy, his charge was to tell
Musharaf to 'knock it off', with the election hijinks. Of course, if past is prologue, the Democrat would use his to block his path to the top office in Foggy Botton. In the event that Romney were the VP, some consideration would be given to Cofer Black as CIA director, N.S,C. director, et al; his track record as Latin Amer chief when he allowed for the rehabilitation of Jose Rodriguez's career after that pernicious leak, his CTC's failure to flag Al Midhar and Hazmi entry into the States. I know how could you realistically do it with the Gorelick protocols. And his VP ship at Blackwater,
"Ravenwood' for you Jericho fans, would be held against him. If Rudy's influence counts for something , a top policy post
would be in store for the last Vietnam
State policy figure; Charles Hill; he was
the administrative figure at the time of
the Saigon incursion, as Schulz's deputy
was lightly tied to the refusal to block
Iran Contra et al;

"RCH, I think it's even simpler than Ann says it is. The guy was speaking in an arrogant, condescending manner about middle-class people in Pennsylvania and the Midwest, and he was doing it in a group of extraordinarily wealthy San Franciso liberals."
Danube of Thought, the Democrats have the same kind of problem. A lot of Democrats, perhaps a lot of them white, e.g. http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.wordpress.com

are really socially liberal and economically conservative. They see the Republican economic system as benefitting them, and then become socially liberal to ease their consciences. So they become limousine liberals, and attack "god, guns, and gays" attitudes of the right, but are not interested in economic liberal issues like helping small town PA. Some of these people could do with more religion, and might look at guns differently if they got mugged themselves or a gay teacher seduced one of their children.
However just as the map of the US can be drawn as shades of Red and Blue, you can also draw it in shades of economic and social conservatism or liberalism. Some areas could do with more economic liberalism in the form of aid like national health care, welfare, and other government handouts especially since Wall Street seems to feel entitled to suck on the public teat when it gets into trouble. Other areas might do with more economic conservatism, like too many living on welfare, too much unionism, etc.
But the same can be said of social conservatism and liberalism. Just as some areas like San Francisco might do with more religion, less tolerance and longer sentences for criminals, other areas can do with more tolerance, less guns, and less religious fundamentalism.
I don't know much about PA but the idea that it could do with more economic aid and protectionism sounds reasonable, even Bush protected the steel industry for a time. If white voters are swayed into religious jingoism and fear of gun control at the expense of electing a Democrat who gives them more money then maybe they should think more about that.
Obama might well be the kind of social liberal and economic conservative to alienate PA voters. He has done well for himself and doesn't seem too keen on helping out the poor at the expense of rich cronies and limousine liberals. He does seem more keen on socially liberal issues like making fun of guns and religion, and implying that people are nuts for being interested in them.
But the limousine liberals and poor fundamentalists are always going to be at each other's throats. The rich liberals don't really want to give them money, and the poor conservatives really don't want their "social conscience" they see as fake. The issue remains though of how to help PA voters economically and neither side seems much interested in this.

He does seem more keen on socially liberal issues like making fun of guns and religion, and implying that people are nuts for being interested in them.

Yes, and if he shows such derision for the first two Amendments, what others does he consider equally risible? Obama's problem is that he has no obvious qualifications for the job. And if we're being asked to elect him solely on the basis of his public pronouncements, then they need to be pretty darn uplifting. Of late, they aren't. (And in fact, if you consider how much of his B.S. is empty rhetoric lifted from others, his gift of gab becomes even less impressive.)

What I find most entertaining is that Obama probably thought he was defending small town PA voters.

The real rookie move here,however, was assumig that he was just talking to the people in the room -- it's the same kind of unforced error Howard Dean made time and again. Apparently Libs believe that small town rubes aren't really paying attention; it never occurs to them that the folks they're psychoanalyzing might actually be listening.

The idea that if blue collar workers were voting in their own economic interests they'd be voting for Democrats has long been a Democratic article of faith. Since Liberals are entirely unwilling to question that assumption, they're always left turning themselves into pretzels in order to explain why a lot of working class folks actually vote Republican. The most popular reason, of course, is that they'be been bamboozled by the right, who have somehow (nefariously!) persuaded them that "values" are more important than pocketbooks, followed closely by the kind of psychobabble stew offered up by Obama.

The anti-NAFTA protectionism Obama is touting right now has absolutely nothing to do with the problems he says he's trying to fix, btw.

I was a socially liberal economic conservative before it was popular. Kind of like being a premature anti-fascist. I was a Libertarian. 9/11 ruined the brand for me.

So now I'm what many would call a RINO. I call myself a libertarian Republican. In fact the Libertarians used to be Republicans before Nixon's wage and price control bit. I've returned to the mother ship.

If there was a leave me alone party that believed in fighting the Islamo Nazis I'd join that. For now me and the republicans are stuck with each other.

"Since Liberals are entirely unwilling to question that assumption, they're always left turning themselves into pretzels in order to explain why a lot of working class folks actually vote Republican. The most popular reason, of course, is that they'be been bamboozled by the right, who have somehow (nefariously!) persuaded them that "values" are more important than pocketbooks, followed closely by the kind of psychobabble stew offered up by Obama."
JM Haynes I agree with you for the most part. Nonetheless Democrats like most left wing parties tend to see the poorer parts of society as their base, and try to expand it. It's the same with the Republicans who see wealthy liberals who take advantage of the Republican system to make money but don't agree with their social values. Some rich people are liberals and some poor ones are conservatives, there is no clear dividing line.

"Since Liberals are entirely unwilling to question that assumption, they're always left turning themselves into pretzels in order to explain why a lot of working class folks actually vote Republican. The most popular reason, of course, is that they'be been bamboozled by the right, who have somehow (nefariously!) persuaded them that "values" are more important than pocketbooks, followed closely by the kind of psychobabble stew offered up by Obama."
JM Haynes I agree with you for the most part. Nonetheless Democrats like most left wing parties tend to see the poorer parts of society as their base, and try to expand it. It's the same with the Republicans who see wealthy liberals who take advantage of the Republican system to make money but don't agree with their social values. Some rich people are liberals and some poor ones are conservatives, there is no clear dividing line.

"Apparently Libs believe that small town rubes aren't really paying attention; it never occurs to them that the folks they're psychoanalyzing might actually be listening"
Yes, I thought Obama was finished when Ann Coulter pointed out excerpts from his book about how much he hates whites and can't understand how they think. He even sympathised with Malcolm X for wanting to get the white blood out of his veins. Then he said he learned to pretend to smile and laugh, so as not to be like the typical angry black man.
I can relate to some of his feelings, but you can't write a book and say thinks like this and expect white people to see you as a uniter. I respect Malcolm X and read his book, but I don't think he would have tried to be president after writing it.

"Apparently Libs believe that small town rubes aren't really paying attention; it never occurs to them that the folks they're psychoanalyzing might actually be listening"
Yes, I thought Obama was finished when Ann Coulter pointed out excerpts from his book about how much he hates whites and can't understand how they think. He even sympathised with Malcolm X for wanting to get the white blood out of his veins. Then he said he learned to pretend to smile and laugh, so as not to be like the typical angry black man.
I can relate to some of his feelings, but you can't write a book and say thinks like this and expect white people to see you as a uniter. I respect Malcolm X and read his book, but I don't think he would have tried to be president after writing it.

"If there was a leave me alone party that believed in fighting the Islamo Nazis I'd join that."
It may be time for a kind of centrist party. I thought Lieberman had a good chance to start a third party with his potential swing vote in the senate. The same thing happened in Britain and they formed a third party called the Social Democrats.

"If there was a leave me alone party that believed in fighting the Islamo Nazis I'd join that."
It may be time for a kind of centrist party. I thought Lieberman had a good chance to start a third party with his potential swing vote in the senate. The same thing happened in Britain and they formed a third party called the Social Democrats.

"We have created a parallel public financing system where the American people decide if they want to support a campaign they can get on the Internet and finance it, and they will have as much access and influence over the course and direction of our campaign that has traditionally been reserved for the wealthy and the powerful."

Is that so? Because from the looks of this pool report describing a lunch Obama had with five small donors, lots of small donors who submitted resumes and wanted to have lunch with him didn't get the chance:

Instead of a restaurant, this lunch was at lone table in an otherwise empty multipurpose room in Ball State University’s athletic complex (everything about the setting said “staged event”).

Five people who didn't give a lot got substantial access to Obama, but Obama got a photo-op in exchange. What access are the other small donors getting*? From the reports of his recent fundraisers it sounds like the big donors are getting the usual amount of access.

Are we back to and/or? Is the statement accurate as long as the big donors have access but no influence?
____________________
*I'm having a fuzzy recollection of an event for Obama small to mid-level (and maybe even big?) donors in a theater earlier this year. Maybe I can find it in the morning. I seem to recall some of the donors didn't think too much of it.

I call myself a libertarian Republican. In fact the Libertarians used to be Republicans before Nixon's wage and price control bit. I've returned to the mother ship.

As far as I'm concerned, the Republicans are too wimpy on economic issues, war prosecution, and civil rights (most definitely including freedom of religion, bearing arms, and political speech), and not inclined to enforce critical laws like immigration. Luckily for them, the Dems are worse on every single one of those issues.

"Stuck with each other" says it pretty well. And considering the alternative, splitting the vote does not attract.

"and not inclined to enforce critical laws like immigration." Cecil, there is a theory that the Roman Empire was destroyed by immigration. When Genghis Khan started attacking east of the Danube the Goths massed on the river trying to escape into the Roman Empire territory. Eventually they were all allowed in and went on a rampage destroying many areas. To counter this they were drafted into the Roman army and eventually moved into positions of power so much that they used that power to let in more and more Goths and in effect took over the whole empire.
The analogy with immigration is that with enough Hispanic migration they can eventually open the borders to their countrymen. Already it is difficult in the border states to be against this because of the Hispanic vote going to whoever continues to allow immigration.
I'm surprised the Republicans have not used changing the constitution about this as a wedge issue. It was worded so that anyone born in the US became a citizen but this was not the intention, nor is it the way most democracies handle this issue. Because a pregnant woman can have her child be a citizen, Hispanics, even Korean and many other countries try and visit the US to have the child here.
But making a campaign promise to change or reinterpret the constitution to stop this should be popular, I think Ron Paul was for this as well. A litmus test of nominating judges to the Supreme Court to interpret the constitution on this as it was meant to would also solve the problem.

"and not inclined to enforce critical laws like immigration." Cecil, there is a theory that the Roman Empire was destroyed by immigration. When Genghis Khan started attacking east of the Danube the Goths massed on the river trying to escape into the Roman Empire territory. Eventually they were all allowed in and went on a rampage destroying many areas. To counter this they were drafted into the Roman army and eventually moved into positions of power so much that they used that power to let in more and more Goths and in effect took over the whole empire.
The analogy with immigration is that with enough Hispanic migration they can eventually open the borders to their countrymen. Already it is difficult in the border states to be against this because of the Hispanic vote going to whoever continues to allow immigration.
I'm surprised the Republicans have not used changing the constitution about this as a wedge issue. It was worded so that anyone born in the US became a citizen but this was not the intention, nor is it the way most democracies handle this issue. Because a pregnant woman can have her child be a citizen, Hispanics, even Korean and many other countries try and visit the US to have the child here.
But making a campaign promise to change or reinterpret the constitution to stop this should be popular, I think Ron Paul was for this as well. A litmus test of nominating judges to the Supreme Court to interpret the constitution on this as it was meant to would also solve the problem.

I suspect the vast majority of the ten plus million illegals in this country have no such claim. And I'm less inclined to change the Constitution when the laws already on the books apply to practically all the cases. In any event, it doesn't appear the law is the problem. Enforcing it is. And one of our political parties is convinced they have a very good reason not to cooperate in enforcement. (A similar consideration, in my opinion, as applies to the successful prosecution of the war.)

Of chief concern to a much smaller group of fund-raisers was that they be credited for any attendees they invited; those with at least 20 tickets to their name have been asked to dine with Mr. Obama at Mr. Geffen’s Beverly Hills mansion after the reception.

But if none of them are registered lobbyists, it's still a new kind of politics.

Robbins Mitchell I suspect you are a Democrat National Committee plant sent spew your filth on as many conservative blogs as possible. This will be useful to Hill if she succeeds in inserting the knife and twisting it, as you will need a conspiracy and will rely need to gin up the black population with it or they will stay home.

If I am right, consider yourself called on it. If not, then you are just an idiot. Stop posting your juvenile little racial slur and go back to reading some old John Birch society pamphlets.

Reading some of these posts is enough to make me even more cynical about politics than I already am.

How much internal wiretapping was Henry K. doing, anyway? How much should we suppose is going on today?

To see Iraq in the context of all of America's messy associations with various despots through the years, and compared with the many times we have meddled in, assisted and abandoned various "movements" and "counter-movements" around the world is disheartening.

Yeah, guys we back & then abandon do tend to come to no good end. Pretty predictable.

Surprising that people still wanna play that game with us! Desperate people, desperate means?

Then, there's all of the desperate "movements" and "leaders" and people who play the same game with the "other side" and also end up in shreds.

Cuba, for instance. Kinda got hung out to dry!

I am just numb, looking at what pathetic choices we Americans have to choose from, voting for our next president. I thought Bush/Cheney was an all-time low.. but, no! We can do even WORSE!

Whether we should have invaded Iraq or not, they have made a huge corrupt incompetent mess of it.

They looked the other way and let Wall Street screw over the entire world's finances, not just our own.

We have cheap goods, but could we quickly produce things we really NEED, should our suppliers turn on us? Is China REALLY our buddy?!

I do not want my prescription drugs coming from China, thank you so very much. At any price.

Do we even have any steel plants left?? Why are we buying our military ammo from Hungary??

This administration could care less if we are over-run by illegal immigrants who ruin our blue collar economy. Let the states & towns worry about it!

Why talk about what happened to Rome, when we can look at today's Britain to see our future? Read their own press & see what the people are faced with. Thanks to their bungling politicians!

The Harvard-educated snobs may seem like a problem, but I have news for ya.. when 50% of the high school kids in our major cities are not even graduating high school, there's another "educational group" I am more worried about!

Black/White/Fajita/Wasabi/Naan... Conservative/Liberal.. Who cares?

How about employable vs unemployable??!!

THAT is what we should be worried about!

We will need even MORE guns to protect ourselves if our population is even more filled with people who are not even qualified to work a real job, with no real job to go TO, and gangs, drugs and crime are their way of making a living. DUH.

Yeah, there are undoubtedly already tons of people in the Central Valley of California who are clinging to their guns for self defense and praying for relief from the illegal immigrant gangs & who is talking about THAT? Way worse than Pennsylvania!

Neither "side" or political party is right all the time, and neither side is wrong all the time. The sooner we wake up and quit playing this like it is some kind of football league, the better.

We won't ever get the centrist, common sense party that many of us long for, because the game goes on & on...

I am another of the fiscally conservative, who does not give a rat's ass about what your religion or sex preference is, and get your mitt's off my gun collection, dude!

The R's are no better than the D's, IMHO. Most on both sides are totally corrupt. I am loving watching them all exposed via today's digital world.

But, also deeply dismayed that we have such a lack of talent to choose from, for president, either side.

Actually an argument can be made, that immigration of a sort, helped end the Roman Republic. The Social Wars which occurred a decade after the Jugurthan Wars; focuses on the claims of Italians over Romans; Marius & Sulla, took after each faction, and by the time of the Mithridates confrontation in
Pontus, we were on the way to men on
horseback like Sulla, the Pompey, Crassus, Lepidus, Caesar alternating triumvirates, Anthony and finally Octavian.

To see Iraq in the context of all of America's messy associations with various despots through the years, and compared with the many times we have meddled in, assisted and abandoned various "movements" and "counter-movements" around the world is disheartening.

Yeah, guys we back & then abandon do tend to come to no good end. Pretty predictable.

Oh, bullshit.

The Soviets and the Chinese adopted a policy in the 1950s that America's Achilles heel was the Third World. To that end they funded and advised Marxist revolutionary insurgencies in a variety of places, incl. Greece, Malaya, Vietnam, Laos, Costa Rica, Guatemala, El Salvador, Cuba.

The US was forced into a reaction pattern. Initially it was only support of local governments by sending in advisors and waging counterinsurgency, then after straying into full on conventional fighting in Vietnam, it became primarily SOF support of local counterinsurgency and political support of anti-Communist governments. Or no support at all, vis Sudan and Angola.

Iran and Vietnam are the only two examples out of about two dozen where we didn't follow our own policy.

Bottom line, Sommer, is that we didn't start the fight. We simply tried to win it on their terms.